JUDGMENT P. C. : 1. The Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1979 filed by the Appellant - original Plaintiff for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit property was dismissed by the trial Court by its judgment and order dated 2nd May 1987. The Regular Civil Appeal No.155 of 1987 filed by the Plaintiff was partly allowed on 22nd July 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge, Kolhapur declaring that the Appellant-Plaintiff is having 1/2 share in the suit property at serial No.1(A), namely Block No. 795 and the Collector is directed to effect partition. The Defendant does not challenge the decree passed by the appellate Court but it is the Plaintiff who has come before this Court in the second appeal. 2. One Santu, common ancestor had three sons – Vithu, Ganu and Hari and the suit property was a coparcenery property in the hands of these coparceners. It is the case of the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants that Dattu, son of Vithu had separated himself by taking away his share. Ganu died and was survived by his son Babu, the Defendant No. 1. The coparcenery then consisted of Hari and his nepehw, Babu. On 29th March 1954 Hari executed a registered gift-deed at Exhibit-119 in respect of his share of 5-anna and 4-paisa in the suit property in favour of Babu, his nephew, Defendant No. 1. 3. The Appellant-Plaintiff Parvati is the daughter of Hari and she filed Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1979 on 31st March 1980 claiming half share in the suit property being the legal heir of Hari. Both the Courts below have recorded the finding of fact that the Defendant No.1 Babu has proved giftdeed dated 29th March 1954 executed by Hari, which is at Exhibit-119 and the Plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the suit properties. The appellate Court has held that the giftdeed at Exhibit-119 does not include the property at serial No. 1(A), namely, Block No. 795 and hence the Plaintiff is held entitled to 1/2 share in that suit property. 4. In the background of aforesaid facts and the findings recorded by the Courts below, this Court had framed two substantial questions of law on 16th June 2014 and the matter was adjourned so as to enable the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to address this Court on the said questions. 4. In the background of aforesaid facts and the findings recorded by the Courts below, this Court had framed two substantial questions of law on 16th June 2014 and the matter was adjourned so as to enable the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to address this Court on the said questions. Those two substantial questions of law are recasted as under : [1] When a coparcenery consists of two members of the joint family, whether the gift of coparcenery property by one of the coparceners in favour of the remaining coparcener becomes void ? [2] Whether a daughter of a coparcener gets any right to succeed to the coparcenery property held by her father prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ? 5. Coming to the first substantial question of law which is framed, the undisputed factual position needs to be seen. With the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through copy of the plaint and the written statement. The parties are very specific in their stand. It is undisputed position that Hari and Babu were the only coparceners and the property in question was a coparcenery property in their hands. By the registered gift-deed dated 29th March 1954 at Exhibit-119, Hari bequeathed his undivided share and interest in the property which was undisputedly 5- anna and 4-paisa in favour of Babu. The gift is prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the position of law prevailing prior to it has been stated by the Apex Court in paras 13 and 17 of its judgment in Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma [(1987) 3 SCC]. The same are reproduced below : “13. We may also refer to a passage from Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 258, which is as follows : "Gift of undivided interest.-- (1) According to the Mitakshara law as applied in all the States, no coparcener can dispose of his undivided interest in coparcenary property by gift. Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which preclude the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners." 17. Such transaction being void altogether there is no estoppel or other kind of personal bar which preclude the donor from asserting his right to recover the transferred property. He may, however, make a gift of his interest with the consent of the other coparceners." 17. It is, however, a settled law that a coparcener can make a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenary property to another coparcener or to a stranger with the prior consent of all other coparceners. Such a gift would be quite legal and valid.” 6. A gift made by a coparcener of his undivided interest in the coparcenery property either in favour of a third person or in favour of another coparcener with the consent of other coparceners would be legal and valid. In the absence of any such consent, the gift becomes void. In the present case, only two surviving coparceners were there, Hari and Babu. Hari has executed a gift of his undivided interest in the coparcenery property in favour of the remaining sole surviving coparcener–Babu, the Defendant No.1 in this case. In such a situation, the question of obtaining consent of other coparceners does not at all arise and the registered gift-deed which is proved cannot be declared or treated as void for want of the consent of other coparceners. The substantial question of law at Serial No.[1] is answered accordingly. 7. The problem can be looked into from another angle. The gift of undivided interest in a coparcenary property by one coparcener, even if it is in favour of any particular named coparcener, can be construed as a relinquishment or renunciation for the benefit of the other coparceners as a body. The matter is no longer res-integra. In the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Thamma Venkata Subbamma v. Thamma Rattamma & Ors cited supra, this question has also been dealt with in paras 20 and 21 of the said decision, which are reproduced below : “20. Coming back to the facts of the case, we find that Rami Reddy made the gift for the common benefit of the donee as well as his sons as held by the High Court. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that really it is a case of renunciation or relinquishment by Rami Reddy of his interest in favour of his brother and his sons. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that really it is a case of renunciation or relinquishment by Rami Reddy of his interest in favour of his brother and his sons. It was the intention of the donor that the property might be enjoyed by his brother and his sons and, excepting that the donor had reserved to himself a life interest, presumably for his maintenance, he gifted his entire interest in the coparcenary property to his brother. There is some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the gift should be construed as relinquishment or renunciation of his undivided interest by the donor in favour of the other coparceners. Although the gift is ostensibly in favour of Veera Reddy, but really the donor meant to relinquish his interest in the coparcenary in favour of Veera Reddy and his sons. In this connection, we may refer to the following passage from Mulla's Hindu Law, Fifteenth Edition, Article 264 at page 357:- "Article 264. (1) Renunciation or relinquishment of his share.---A coparcener may renounce his interest in the coparcenary property in favour of the other coparceners as a body but not in favour of one or more of them. If he renounces in favour of one or more of them the renunciation enures for the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the sole benefit of the coparcener or coparceners in whose favour the renunciation is made. Such renunciation is not invalid even if the renouncing coparcener makes it a condition that he would be paid something towards maintenance. The renunciation or relinquishment must, of course, be genuine. If fictitious and not acted upon it would not be operative as between the parties and partition can be claimed." 21. Assuming that it is a renunciation in favour of one of the coparceners, namely, Veera Reddy, such renunciation enures for the benefit of all other coparceners and. not for the sole benefit of the coparcener in whose favour the renunciation was made. In our view, the gift made by Rami Reddy to Veera Reddy should be construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of Veera Reddy and his sons who were the remaining coparceners. not for the sole benefit of the coparcener in whose favour the renunciation was made. In our view, the gift made by Rami Reddy to Veera Reddy should be construed as renunciation of his undivided interest in the coparcenary in favour of Veera Reddy and his sons who were the remaining coparceners. The gift was, therefore, valid construing the same as renunciation or relinquishment by Rani Reddy of his interest in the coparcenary and, accordingly, the consent of other coparceners was immaterial. In view of the aforesaid decision and the facts and circumstances of the present case, the gift in question at Exhibit-119 has to be construed as relinquishment or renunciation of an undivided interest of Hari in favour of and for the benefit of the surviving coparceners and such renunciation or relinquishment cannot be treated as invalid or void. 8. Coming to the second substantial question of law, an undisputed factual position is that there was no partition in respect of the coparcenery property either till the date of execution of the gift-deed dated 29th March 1954 or even after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in the year 1956 and thereafter till the death of Hari on 10th August 1971. In the decision of this Court in Bhagirathibai v. Tanabai [ 2013(2) Mh.L.J. 502 ] the position of law prevailing at the time of coming into force of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has been stated in paragraph 11 and 12, which are reproduced below. “11. A Hindu joint family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases to be a member of her father's family on marriage and becomes a member of her husband's family. A joint or undivided Hindu family may consists of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. The existence of at least one male member is essential for constituting a joint family with other members. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the Hindu joint family. The coparcenary not only consists of father and sons, but also grandsons, great-grandsons of the holder of the joint family property for the time being. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenery property. 12. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than the Hindu joint family. The coparcenary not only consists of father and sons, but also grandsons, great-grandsons of the holder of the joint family property for the time being. It includes only those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenery property. 12. The property inherited by a Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father is an ancestral property, whereas the property inherited by him from other relations is his separate property. If a Hindu inherits the property from his father, it becomes ancestral in his hands as regards his son. In such a case, it is said that the son becomes a coparcener with the father as regards the property so inherited and the coparcenery consists of a father and a son. Even wife, though she is entitled to maintenance out of her husband's property and has, to that extent, an interest in his property, is not her husband's coparcener, nor is a mother a coparcener with her son, neither a mother-in-law with her daughter-in -law.” 9. In view of the aforesaid position of law that a Hindu joint family consists of persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and includes their wives and unmarried daughters. A daughter ceases to be a member of her father's family on marriage and becomes a member of her husband's family. In the present case, on the date of execution of the gift-deed at Exhibit-119, the Plaintiff who is the daughter of Hari, was married, and therefore she ceased to be a member of the Hindu joint family headed by his father Hari. A Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body than a Hindu joint family. The coparcenary consists of all those persons who acquire by birth an interest in the joint or coparcenary property and it consists of not only father and sons but also grandsons and great-grandsons. A daughter is not considered to be a coparcener as she does not acquire any interest in the joint or coparcenary property by birth. On the date of execution of the gift-deed, the property in question was a coparcenary property and there was no partition between Hari and Ganu or his son Babu–the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff, therefore, did not possess any interest in the coparcenary property when a giftdeed at Exhibit-119 was executed. On the date of execution of the gift-deed, the property in question was a coparcenary property and there was no partition between Hari and Ganu or his son Babu–the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff, therefore, did not possess any interest in the coparcenary property when a giftdeed at Exhibit-119 was executed. She had, therefore, no right to succeed to a coparcenary property held by her father prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The second substantial question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly. In view of the above, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.